Latest Cancer Risk Study Calls for Cohesive Environmental Policy

In the 2008-2009 report from the President's Cancer Panel, a medical doctor and a professor tell President Barack Obama that the incidence and mortality of cancer is lower than in year's past. However, a growing body of evidence linking environmental exposures to cancer has made the public aware of the "unacceptable burden of cancer resulting from environmental and occupational exposures that could have been prevented through appropriate national action."

Members of the panel are LaSalle D. Leffall, Jr., M.D., the Charles R. Drew Professor of Surgery at Howard University College of Medicine in Washington, D.C., and Margaret L. Kripke, Ph.D., the Vivian L. Smith Chair and Professor Emerita at The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

The 240-page report describes the sources of exposures and outlines the failings of environmental cancer research, testing methods, and environmental regulation. "U.S. regulation of environmental contaminants is rendered ineffective by five major problems:

  • inadequate funding and insufficient staffing,
  • fragmented and overlapping authorities coupled with uneven and decentralized enforcement,
  • excessive regulatory complexity,
  • weak laws and regulations, and
  • undue industry influence.

The panel concluded that the United States needs a comprehensive, cohesive policy agenda regarding environmental contaminants and protection of human health.

In regards to research, the report said, "Single-agent toxicity testing and reliance on animal testing are inadequate to address the backlog of untested chemicals already in use and the plethora of new chemicals introduced every year. Some high-throughput screening technologies are available to enable testing of many chemicals and other contaminants simultaneously, but many remain to be developed to meet chemical testing needs."

Once those chemicals are tested, manufacturers may need to reformulate them to remove cancer-causing elements. But even those replacement, or green, chemicals require longitudinal study to ensure they do not pose unexpected health hazards, the panel added.

You can read the full report here: "Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now.".

Comments

Thu, May 13, 2010

The Cure and Prevention of All Cancers by Dr Hulda R. Clark is the answer.

Wed, May 12, 2010 Larry Arizona

It's amazing to me that these people get paid to reiterate the same issues that are well known. Many of the "so called" health issues they include have been adequately studied over my working life time. One example: Radon is typically an issue if you live in an area where in occurs naturally and you have a basement. In areas like the SW there are few basements and thus little natural radon exposure in housing. There would be no reason to mandate annual radon sampling or radon sampling of all real estate deals. With this new Administration, I realize that being aggressive in the pursuit of government dolars is PC, however, good science should always be the goal. The tax payers want the government to protect them in all ways including their checkbooks.

Tue, May 11, 2010 Chris NC

Has anyone done a study of the negative health impact that our current collection of polititions is having on the population at large? This should have top priority. Someone needs to get into panic mode over this. Resolution of this would probably cure 99% of our current problems, environmental and otherwise.

Mon, May 10, 2010 Bobby Fontaine Lorton. VA

After reading this article, read the one at the link below to see how a lot of experts are against the prospect of cleaning up the environment and products we consume - http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64827I20100510

Mon, May 10, 2010 Abe

Ban smoking in all public establishments, ie bars, restarants/eatery's and all places where non-smokers are subject to second hand smoke.

Add your Comment

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above